The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[Reasonable]

appolose said:

Reasonable said:
Uh, appolose, in Science - I mean true, pure science, not anything skewed by financial research - if you have two contradictory readings or scenario you don't reach for supernatural, you realize that you're missing something that currently remains unknown.

For example, initially, when Einstein and others we're getting into relativity, etc. such contradictions seemed to occur - the key one being that light, no matter how measured, always seemed to be going at the same speed irrespective of the observer. At first this seemed contradictory to other measurements that would imply it should differ.

However, Einstein didn't reach for supernatural, he realised that they were all missing something fundamental, and that the contradictory readings were simply confirming this.

So far as we know currently, and can confirm via tests, he was right, because he then went on to work out the missing element - that the speed of light can remain the same because time can vary to allow for it, respective to different frames of reference.

I guess you're posing a thought experiment - but so far, in my view, there has never been (and never will be) a genuine case of true contradictory results.

As always, it will just mean we're missing something crucial that can appear to cause a contradiction when in fact there is none (once you work out he missing crucial factor).

In my scenario, if it were a case of us missing something, then I am positing that to assume so would be to contradict a basic tenet (that's better, eh?) of science. While you may be right in saying this is a thought experiment, my point is merely to demonstrate that is is possible for science to come to a supernatural conclusion.

Nope.  No matter what contradiction they hit, in so far as the basic scientific theory goes, they would simply take it for granted tha they were missing something and keep looking.

Contradictions to basic tenent's have happened plenty of times and are happening right now - sure, scietists don't like it, they're people after all, but they accept they might be missing something and keep looking.

An example:

Scientists are searching for Dark Matter because current data shows that the observed Universe is wrong.  Put simply, there isn't enough known matter to produce what we see in terms of star orbits, etc.  The current view is we're missing some form of matter - nicknamed Dark Matter, and scientists are searching for it right now.  They might find it, problem solved, or they might fail to find it but find it was something else.  It's possible that, depending upon what they find basic tenets will be demolished and rebuilt.

 

Now, right here with this contradiction, scientists could reach for supernatural.  They could say, we know this is impossible, andwe can't find anything to explain (becasue right now they can't, it's a genuine mystery) so it must be supernatural.  But they haven't and they won't.  They've figured something is missing, it's gained a catchy nickname (Dark Matter) and they're going to keep looking.

The core concept of Science is that everything is a theory, and even the most core tenets can be discared and replaced.  Now, as people, they will struggle with this the more the tenet is something really fundamental, but they'll do it.  Their attitude would be 'we'd rather not have to discard this cherished tenet and rebuild the thing up from the ground again, but we will if we have to'

Think about it - what is more likely to have them reaching for the supernatural than the knowledge that our Universe would appear to be impossible based on observed galaxies, stars, etc. and their behaviour, our knowledge of physics, and what we can observe.  The model doesn't work, the star's should be flying apart, but they aren't and we don't know why... and yet they still don't bring in supernatural, they simply say we're probably missing something.  It's probably some form of exotic matter so let's go spend some money and see if we can find it!